If you disagree I’m happy to be persuaded. But you won’t persuade me that Pāli has a word for history without citing such a word. Nor will you persuade me by invoking Hegel. Nor by suggesting that you have an ideological objection to what I wrote.
Moreover, I’ve never read Hegel, never been interested in Hegel. I’ve never read anything good or interesting about Hegel even. So your invocation of Hegel seems to be a red herring. And moreover, he and I appear have different views of India history (based on your four word summary of the most verbose philosopher in history).
My entirely uncontroversial claim, re India, is that Indian history begins with documents, and the first documents in Indian were the Asokan inscriptions. Evidence for writing is a little earlier, but they don’t quite make documents. See for example the article I posted about just 23 days ago: Aśoka and the Use of Writing in Ancient India
No modern historian disagrees with this. Hegel might, but I wouldn’t know about that.
Moreover, there is a great deal we can say about various Indian cultures in pre-history via archaeology, for example, I regularly make use of the concept of the “two cultures” which is based on the changing distribution of pottery styles in North India.